The concept of political correctness is certainly a loaded one. It is as protected as much as it is held in disdain, and in this sense the idea carries a twofold connotation. For one, political correctness constitutes a culture favoring inclusivity and unprejudiced respect for people of all backgrounds and identities. On the other hand, the pressure of adhering to a code that strives to be as inoffensive as possible evokes a form of social censorship. The term ‘political correctness’ carries a bitter undertone. This attitude is best depicted by a sneer reacting to the laborious task of being zero percent offensive or neglectful. To some, there are costs, particularly regarding freedom of speech. Then there are people who concern themselves with the duty of correcting these sort of offenses. They wouldn’t defend their stances in the name of ‘political correctness,’ but rather, human decency. Often it seems that in these people’s eyes, only a brute would interchange morality for ‘political correctness.’

I’ve sat in lectures where professors had to lay disclaimers on scientific facts before discussing psychological and biological sex differences. It’s as if they’re pleading, “Don’t kill me for implying that men and women are not equal — this is just science!” It’s interesting to me how these professors anticipate contempt given their audience is, well, comprised of college students. The threat of breaking this morally-binding social code sequesters speech and often makes me question whether our strive for inclusivity and equality reinforces the idea of fragility, instead of actually promoting ideals.

This brings me to the comments section. Whether on YouTube, Facebook, Tumblr or any other online forum, the nature of the Internet provides a vocal platform for contentious debates, in which one is awarded a degree of anonymity or is presented with an invitation to be admired by others.

In my mind, one particular exchange stands out.

Last month in a Sacramento Bee article, two commenters illustrated the double-edged nature of political correctness. The article talks about the gradual disappearance of Native American figures as school and sports teams’ emblems in an effort to be more sensitive to the civilization’s history and people.

“Nowadays, everything is offensive,” wrote one sharer, expressing her frustration and lamenting an imposed politically correct culture.

She followed up with the fact that she is proud of her own Native American heritage and that she doesn’t mind “Indian” as a label. A second person offered a more ‘upright’ response, commenting on the insensitivity of appropriating Native American culture. She gave special consideration to the historical context, saying that abolishing the symbol should be unproblematic and is, at the very least, respectful. Opinions vouching for both sides flooded the comments thread, and arguments turned into personal attacks, which I found funny, given that these commenters were initially concerned with potential or implied insult.

I am not saying that defending minority groups in the comments section is unproductive. And I absolutely do not endorse attacking people for their choices, identities or circumstances. The intent behind a politically correct attack comes from an honorable place and is progressive considering America’s social consciousness 60 years ago. But it is not my intent to dictate how we should feel about the bigotry we see online or in the media. In my view, we can direct our anger in more productive ways. And while I identify as a feminist and a left-wing thinker, I also believe that expressing wrath over conservative opinions is what makes Donald Trump so popular.

There is something about this politically correct culture that isn’t entirely defensible, and I think it has a lot to do with intolerance of differing opinions. We censor terms that we think aren’t PC. I remember during a high school oral reading of John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, the teacher had us say “African-American” instead of the harsher racial epithet. I believe that this sort of censorship rids us of the opportunity to talk about contentious issues. More often than not, preemptive measures to eradicate uncomfortable truths from conversation do more harm than good. We could euphemize the slurs, cut out the jokes and disregard the disturbing historical context, but whenever possible, we should still talk about what makes them so taboo in the first place. I’m not exactly calling for a ceasefire against racist, sexist or other prejudiced ways of thinking. I just want to have a conversation about our politically correct culture.

You can reach Jazmin Garcia at msjgarcia@ucdavis.edu.

With the school year upon us, I wanted to say hello and welcome you back to campus. In continuing this blog, I plan to keep you updated on what my administration is working on and also respond to questions you would like answered.

In my first column, I will answer a question posed to me by the California Aggie Editorial Board:

“Given the recent racially charged incident at UCLA and other past events at UC Davis, what specific steps will you take this year to prevent racial discrimination on this campus?”

I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of our students, faculty and staff find acts of discrimination abhorrent and would never behave in such a manner. Still, on a campus with as many people on it every day as UC Davis, we will never be immune to some of the same unfortunate divisions that occur in society at-large.  Nevertheless, we must do everything we can to be a community that embraces diversity in all its complexities and honors our Principles of Community. Our university can and should be a model for others to follow in treating people from all walks of life with dignity and respect. To make this a reality requires persistent efforts by all of us working collectively throughout our campus.

We have initiated several steps to create a more supportive and inclusive environment for students, faculty and staff, including work that is underway to draft and implement a Strategic Plan for Diversity and Inclusion that coalesces all our work in this effort. We have also created a restorative justice program and developed training courses for staff supervisors and managers on microaggression. And just last week, I established a task force led by Provost Hexter and Vice Chancellor Adela de la Torre regarding workplace climate issues, requesting recommendations on any necessary changes within three months.

Our efforts on these issues must be ongoing and persistent, something we work on always as we strive to create a campus environment where all individuals feel they belong to the Aggie community. If you are aware of behavior that violates these values, I hope you will reach out to me or other campus officials. We want to know about your concerns so we can address the issue head-on and talk about it freely, openly and safely.

As always, you can email me your thoughts and questions to askkatehi@ucdavis.edu and I will try my best to answer you in my next Ask Katehi column.

Follow me on social media; visit my Facebook, Twitter, Instagram , Google+, YouTube, LinkedIn profiles or my Huffington Post Blog.

Tags: Linda Katehi, Chancellor Katehi, University of California Davis, campus climate

Student government: not the place for petty infighting.

ASUCD made history last week, however, the association may go down in history for other reasons.

At the senate meeting on Oct. 8, the senate pro-tempore was removed and replaced mid-quarter for the first time in recent years. This happened when Senator Casey Nguyen nabbed the position from former pro-tempore Alex Lee after an argument ensued over Lee’s decisions when helping to replace the seat of former senator Sarah Priano.

In a nutshell, Lee was removed and replaced by a vote from a majority of his colleagues. This vote took place after Senator Sevan Nahabedian accused Lee of abusing his power as pro-tempore. Nahabedian argued that by not choosing Senator Reem Fatayerji to sit on the interview panel to help choose the seat, despite Fatayerji saying that she was available for all interviews, Lee overstepped his role.

Without taking a side on this issue, the Editorial Board believes that last week’s senate meeting was neither the time nor place for that discussion to happen.

The debacle between Lee, Nahabedian and Fatayerji was clearly an isolated issue that should have been discussed privately. But for many members of the table, last week’s meeting was the first time that they heard the story behind the conflict. It is unfair to expect that the nine-or-so senators who were not directly involved in the situation to develop an opinion, let alone vote on the issue, in the approximate hour-and-a-half spent in public discussion.

This meeting, nearly half of which was spent tackling the conflict, was an inappropriate occasion to discuss the issue. Senate meetings are meant to hear out public voices from the community and discuss policy in order to find ways to better the campus. Rather than wasting not only the senators’ time, but also the public’s time, on an isolated incident involving only a select few, the meeting should’ve been spent discussing the issues that hundreds of students actually elected these public officials to handle.

With last week’s incident and senators dropping in and out of ASUCD, the power switch seems like an issue beyond just a seat on an interview committee. ASUCD can switch seats around and re-elect as many public officials as it would like, but none of those things will fix a divided association in desperate need of repair. Communication is key for a group to run smoothly, and when accusations of power abuse are only brought forth to everyone’s attention at a public meeting, it is not indicative of a well-communicated organization.

If we can’t expect our elected public officials to get along, how can we hope for campus unity? “One UC Davis” is a movement that’s been promoted by the school for several years. It’s about time ASUCD took the hint.

Update: 10/15/16 11:38 a.m.: Headline was changed from “An association divided” to “A senate table divided.”

With every generation, societal priorities and values are bound to evolve; we are molded by world events, experiences and advancing technology. Baby Boomers were profoundly affected by the Civil Rights Movement and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, while Generation Xers were most significantly impacted by the rise of AIDS and the innovation of personal computers.

Millennials have largely been influenced by social media and the growing prominence of Silicon Valley, and our priorities, often emphasizing compassion, have been shaped accordingly.

Priorities of Millennials can seem paradoxical. For example, we want to be self-starters pursuing goals unique to the individual, but we are also committed to helping or accommodating others at the same time. In essence, we value a true work-life balance — and we expect our employers, young or old, to understand this.

I only came to realize the weight of these values, and how they had long been ingrained in me, during my internship this summer at  Wunderkid, a social good startup.

I originally committed to a PR internship for the company because I knew I would learn much more in an intimate work environment. I valued their mission to allow student artists to sell their work in an online gallery and put the earnings toward college tuition. Still, I hadn’t realized how inherently drawn I was to the company’s promotion of “passion meeting profession” until much later. I had no idea that Wunderkid would also shape how I balance my values both at work and more generally in life.  Despite my short hours, the company’s environment fed my ambitious nature and sparked my intense curiosity about the inner-workings of Millennial culture.

As a Millennial herself, founder and CEO of Wunderkid Denise Troy appeals to our generation in every aspect of her business. In founding Wunderkid, she set out to both contribute to the world of art education and redefine the workplace.

Denise reflected on her professional tenets, which included her basis for a harmonious and highly productive work environment.

“In my experience, Millennials thrive when given freedom and a looser framework for their workday […] I trust who I hire and because of this, I see my employees’ work output doubling that of what I’ve seen in other professional environments,” Troy said.

Research suggests that Troy’s philosophy is on point; increasing amounts of young workers would take a pay cut or pass on a promotion in order to better achieve a work-life balance. Roughly 40 percent of Millennials are so unsatisfied with uncompensated parental-leave policies that they would be willing to relocate to a new country.

The takeaway: While many older bosses may be convinced that people who don’t come into the office on a daily basis don’t work as hard, the opposite is actually true. Advancement in technology allows and encourages professional flexibility. Accepting this reality can ultimately allow for a slew of necessary changes in traditional corporate environments. A mutual respect and understanding in the workplace is critical to Millennials, and the productivity and true success of companies depend on this.

A culture is not a party

Imagine that you’re at a party. Music is playing, alcohol is flowing and suddenly, some people arrive in blackface. The other members of the party continue about their business, seemingly unfazed. No one speaks up; no one asks for the blackface to be removed. Some people might even laugh.

This might sound like a scene straight out of the 1920s, but it happened just last week, when the UCLA chapters of the Sigma Phi Epsilon (SigEp) fraternity and the Alpha Phi sorority made headlines after photos emerged of members wearing blackface, dressed up in chains and oversized clothing at a “Kanye-Western” themed party.

Racist incidents like these are nothing new. This spring, the UC Davis chapters of the Sigma Chi fraternity and Alpha Phi were asked to apologize after holding a culturally insensitive “Phiesta” party. The women’s lacrosse team also found itself embroiled in controversy this spring, after senior lacrosse players dressed up in checkered shirts, baggy pants and mustaches along with a sign that read “Los Señ(i)ors.” Last spring, some employees of the CoHo organized “Cinco de Drinko,” complete with a Facebook event page that included a picture of four male students trying to hop a chain-link fence while two females in Border Patrol uniforms watched on.

These are not isolated events. These are occurrences of cultural appropriation stemming from institutionalized racism, and the Editorial Board demands that the University of California (UC) come up with a better solution to combatting the intolerance and ignorance that plagues our campus. Enough with the canned formal apologies that the offending party issues after every racist decision. If people were truly sorry, if they truly had learned their lesson, why do these incidents continue?

It’s because women who dress up as Mexicans for senior pictures do not have to worry about being pulled over and having their citizenship questioned. It’s because men who dress in blackface can take the blackface off after the party and walk home without fear of being shot by the police for wearing a hoodie. It’s because the UC system does not do enough to hold these students accountable for their actions; it’s because the UC system doesn’t put enough energy into educating its students about why cultural appropriation damages and hurts our community. For all the talk about how diverse the UC is, the fact that incidences like these continue to occur show us that there is not enough education on cross-cultural communication being done.

Students also need to hold each other accountable. The UCLA SigEp chapter states on its Facebook page that the organization promotes “leadership, service, and academic excellence through brotherhood.” Where was this leadership when people arrived in blackface? Where was this leadership when the party was being planned? If you go to a party and choose not to call out the racist themes you see, you are perpetuating the casual racism that makes students of color feel unsafe on campus. With Halloween coming up soon, the Editorial Board expects to see a slew of other culturally insensitive costumes, from the sexy geisha to the Cherokee princess to the Arab sheik. We encourage students to be culturally conscious when picking out a Halloween costume and to keep in mind the effects their decisions may have.

The Editorial Board believes that we, as a university, can do more to make all students feel safer on campus. We believe that the UC system must do better. Not soon, not in the future, but now.

If you were to ask your great-aunt Sue if golden brown was her real hair color, she might respond, “This is all-natural!” Hopefully you would know better than to ask, and especially know better than to call her bluff. And later, when she serves you a chicken dinner and announces that the meat is all-natural, you can be sure that the chicken is about as natural as her hair color.

Six years ago, the documentary Food, Inc. revealed to the world the meat industry’s foul production practices. Many people have also read Fast Food Nation, Eric Schlosser’s book that reveals many disturbing secrets about the fast food industry. Animals are raised in dirty settings, fed hormones to speed up growth at unnatural rates and treated inhumanely at many farms and slaughterhouses.

Tyson Foods is just one example of a company that has been found to mistreat their animals and use unsanitary practices in their factories. In 2007, investigators witnessed workers urinating on birds as they prepared them for the slaughterhouse. Smithfield Foods is another example of a farm where animals are tortured and abused. Pigs at Smithfield are fed many antibiotics in order to help them survive the filthy factory conditions while they are forced into unnatural cycles of pregnancy. The animals’ ears, tails and teeth are cut off without the use of painkillers. But while all these practices are horrible, knowing what to look for when purchasing your meat products has the ability to improve your health and the industry.

If possible, try to buy meat products from a farmers market. This is the most realistic way for you to be confident about how your food is made and where it comes from. Ask about what the animal was fed and its living conditions, as if you were on the set of Portlandia.

If you cannot access or afford food from a farmers market, head to a grocery store and carefully at the food labels. If a product is certified “USDA Organic”, such as Organic Prairie’s, this indicates that a third party, the United States Department of Agriculture, regulates the feed production, animal husbandry, processing materials and methods for that company. It also means that the product is made with at least 95 percent organic ingredients and does not contain any genetic modifiers.

Another important quality to look for is a company that can guarantee antibiotic-free meat. Many animals are given antibiotics to speed up their growth rate in order to mass produce and save money on the animal’s feed. This abusive animal treatment also contributes to antibiotic resistance in humans. Recently, Governor Brown signed SB 27, a state law prohibiting the use of repeated antibiotics for animals that are not sick. It also requires the California Department of Food and Agriculture to follow a monitoring program to keep tabs on livestock antibiotic usage.

Thankfully, Davis offers a plethora of options to those trying to eat sustainably and ethically. The farmers market in the square every Saturday and some Wednesdays are a great opportunity to buy local and organic products, as well as to speak directly with the people involved in the production of your food. You can also consider Whole Foods, which strives to improve its Animal Welfare Standards. These standards prohibit hormones, growth promotants and antibiotic use in all their animal products. Among other fresh and local foods, the Davis Food Co-op offers meats from various local farmers ranging from grass fed beef to free-range organic chicken raised using environmentally sustainable farming practices.

While ethical eating can get expensive, educating yourself on where your meat is coming from is completely free. Read the ingredients on the back of the package and if you see something you don’t recognize, look it up. Find out what the animal you are going to consume for dinner had for lunch. Keep in mind that each dollar you put toward organic and antibiotic free meat is a vote for stricter regulations and better animal treatment.